2nd presidential debate

[Mango]

If solar is an economically viable alternative, you won't need government investment, there will be billions of private investment. It's not like solar technology appeared on the scene yesterday - it's been around as an alternative for years. Solar didn't provide a cheaper alternative when oil was $140.00 a barrel. What gives you reason to believe it will be more competitive when oil hits $60.00 a barrel in a couple of months absent government subsidies like the one in the bailout bill?

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/10/07/ap5520520.html

Your link hardly proved your case. It says due to capital being in low supply, Solar stock dropped, however, Goldman Saks said that solar will be a good investment in the future. Once again, you're thinking short term. Yes, solar has been around forever, no pun intended, but this country/world has never been in a situation where alternative energies investment is just a passing fancy for the greenies. It's a necessity.

The price of oil may continue to go down, especially if efficiency in alternative sources in years to come reach comparables oil prices . However, oil is a finite resource. What makes you think it will last forever with the population in this world? Pehaps when the government starts limiting your consumption, home sizes, how many children people can have, and mandates they go to military school so they can protect this country, people will then start to realize we should have invested in using all our alternate sources?

 

[Miss Kitty]

Sachs, not Saks. That's where they used to shop.

 

[traderx]

Balanced budgets have not been anyone's forte over the past three decades. Sadly, I don't think the budget can be balanced at this point.

 

[Bob]

Man I hope you guys are right about a balanced budget, but you can chalk me up as a pessimist on it actually happening. I am now pretty sure Obama is going to win this one - which means we'll have a very democratic congress, and a very democratic president. Balanced budgets are not their forte, especially when you have a president whose convinced he can balance things without cutting spending and without raising taxes on families that make under 250K a year. In addition, we'll have this bailout to pay for, and the additional spending in energy research, military costs and Afghanistan, healthcare... it does not look good at all.

that democrat/deficit comparison is as worn out as an '85 plymouth reliant given the breathtaking fiscal mismanagement since clinton's administration

 

[Kayak Fish]

One thing that I found interesting was Obama's placing healthcare second to other concerns like energy. I think he's finally starting to figure out he isn't going to have the funds he wants to pay for his programs until after the economy recovers.

My personal feeling is that right about when we get into a recovery, the bush tax cuts will expire, Obama won't get all his tax cuts down below 250K a year, and this will hit the economy hard. I'm expecting a prolonged recovery that'll probably last the full term of the next president.

Which brings up an interesting question - where does everyone see the country after four years? Will we have a balanced budget, government subsidized healthcare, energy independence, all troops out of Iraq, a booming economy? My guess is no, no, no, no, and no.

He put healthcare second because only a sixth of the country is uninsured and some people are happy with their plans (like people who work for government) but everyone is paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas. It's just numbers. I looks for some kind of Hillary sponsored healthcare bill to be on his desk within a year in office.

No one has ever claimed those things will happen in 4 years. I imagine we are headed for economic despair for two more years and that our troops will still be policing the world, but that healthcare and energy costs (the latter due to changed habits in a poor economy) will stabilize.

 

[full time]

He put healthcare second because only a sixth of the country is uninsured and some people are happy with their plans (like people who work for government) but everyone is paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas. It's just numbers. I looks for some kind of Hillary sponsored healthcare bill to be on his desk within a year in office.

No one has ever claimed those things will happen in 4 years. I imagine we are headed for economic despair for two more years and that our troops will still be policing the world, but that healthcare and energy costs (the latter due to changed habits in a poor economy) will stabilize.

Wow - profound change indeed. Looks like 4 years of Barack Obush.

 

[Teresa]

Wow - profound change indeed. Looks like 4 years of Barack Obush.

I disagree, however, there is no doubt that Bush policies will haunt the next president and our country for the years to come. at least we will make progress in overcoming them.

 

[traderx]

Wow - profound change indeed. Looks like 4 years of Barack Obush.

Regardless of the current polls, I have not lost hope for Bob Barr. He has a full percent and I expect him to surge next week possibly reaching 1.2 percent.

HOPE: the new alternative energy.

 

[full time]

I disagree, however, there is no doubt that Bush policies will haunt the next president and our country for the years to come. at least we will make progress in overcoming them.

It's ironic that Bush I and Clinton's policies in Iraq, Clinton's failure to deal with Bin Laden and Clinton's tech bubble all haunted Bush II, but only future presidents are allowed to blame the country's problems on their predecessor Bush II for the entirety of their term. Hey, it's a jungle out there - if Obama can't handle it, he should forfeit it to Hillary.

 

[Geo]

It's ironic that Bush I and Clinton's policies in Iraq, Clinton's failure to deal with Bin Laden and Clinton's tech bubble all haunted Bush II, but only future presidents are allowed to blame the country's problems on their predecessor Bush II for the entirety of their term. Hey, it's a jungle out there - if Obama can't handle it, he should forfeit it to Hillary.

FT,

Please help us to understand how Bush I and Clinton's policies in Iraq hurt W. You know darn well that W had the sympathy and support of most everyone in this country and most of the world after 9-11. He blew that by choosing to invade Iraq. I don't think there are many on here who really blame Bush for the current economic mess. I read mostly that blame is shared by both sides and that this thing is beyond politicians- the Fin Serv industry bundled questionable loans, leveraged too much and then spread them out everywhere to investors who forgot about fundamentals. Did deregulation and easing lending standards help to create a perfect environment for the greed? Yep. But the greed ran with the ball- on both Wall Street and Main Street...

You are 100% correct that Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden and we all wish he did. But you gotta admit this is Monday morning quarterbacking. At that time Bin Laden was a known threat moreso based on his words/threats than his actions. Lots of fanatics hated us then and still do and there are others he didn't go after. If Clinton (or any other POTUS from either side) could have fathomed that Bin Laden would/could really carry out an attack like 9-11 they would have killed him without hesitation...

In short, you can blame anyone you want. Others will too...
But you telling us that W is getting a bum rap in general is tough to accept. He was a miserable POTUS irrespective of what his dad or Clinton did/didn't do before him...